ABSTRACT
The task of historicizing interpreting has been marked by two related problematics – the orality of interpreting, and the assumed individual nature of the interpreting encounter. Starting from these challenges, the Cchapter examines the development of historical research in interpreting, noting both its emphasis on excavating interpreter visibility in the records, and the key influence of post-war conference interpreting in creating a neutral professional interpreter figure associated with international meetings - peacemaking, reconciliation, diplomacy - which that are axiomatically benign. Cultural and post -colonial scholarship has directed attention towards a wider range of historical contexts for interpreting, with implications both for its relationship with the state apparatus, and the positionality and subjectivity of the interpreter. Movements within the discipline of history, meanwhile, are increasingly looking away from the nation- state to focus instead on the transnational, engaging with the fact that writing transnational histories from below inevitably means including multiple voices and perspectives, and, hence, the key role of language. For historians of interpreting, these transnational approaches potentially extend the range of sources at their disposal and provide fresh insight into the complexity and variety of language encounters. In this way, Iinterpreting Hhistory, itself, can challenge both the established practices of oral history and traditional notions of what constitutes the historical archive.
